Stativity and Progressive: The Case of Japanese ‘tokoro-da’1
Magdalena Kaufmann — University of Connecticut
Stefan Kaufmann — University of Connecticut
Abstract. The Japanese noun ‘tokoro’ (lit. ‘place’) has a grammaticalized variant with a temporal interpretation (Takubo 2011). Syntactically, this variant behaves like a noun and is typically
modified by a sentence (or a suitable proform). The resulting NP ‘S-tokoro’ roughly means
‘time at which S’. With the copula ‘da/datta’ (Non-Past/Past) it can form a matrix sentence; but
on its own it can also be used as a temporal adverbial. In these respects it is similar to other
temporal expressions like ‘S-mae’ (‘time before S’), ‘S-ato’ (‘time after S), and ‘S-toki’ (‘time
at which S’). But the acceptability and interpretation of ‘S-tokoro’ interacts with the temporal and aspectual properties of ‘S’ in puzzling ways. Focusing on matrix uses in this paper
(embedded ones being similar), we develop an analysis that accounts for those interactions.
Keywords: tense, aspect, temporal adverbs, modality, counterfactuality, progressive, Japanese
1. Introduction
The Japanese noun ‘tokoro’ (lit. ‘place’) has a grammaticalized variant as a “formal noun”
(形式名詞), a dependent category taking a sentential complement to form a compound which
behaves outwardly like a noun phrase. In this paper we focus on sentences formed of such an
‘S-tokoro’ phrase and a tensed form of the copula ‘da’, shown schematically in (1).2
(1)
[ [ Sentence ] tokoro ] { da / datta }
Here Sentence stands for a tensed clause and ‘da, datta’ are the Nonpast and Past forms of
the copula. On the temporal interpretation of ‘tokoro’ (other readings are possible, see below),
(1) locates the matrix reference time relative to a time at which Sentence is or was true. The
temporal and aspectual properties of Sentence play a crucial role in determining both whether
the construction as a whole is well-formed, and if it is, how it is interpreted. Our goal in this
paper is to give a semantic analysis which accounts for these interactions. The observation
we are most interested in is that only non-stative and progressive Sentences are allowed under
temporal ‘tokoro’, whereas lexical statives and perfects are not.
1 This
paper is part of an extensive ongoing project with Yukinori Takubo, to whom we are grateful for much
inspiration and discussion. However, the analysis presented here is our own and differs from his in important
respects. We are also grateful to Setsuko Arita, Ikumi Imani, Yuya Okawa, Yukiko Atarashiya, the audiences the
workshop on Modality as a window on cognition (19th International Congress of Linguistics, Geneva, 2013), the
Meikai University Linguistics Colloquium (2015), Sinn und Bedeutung 21 (Edinburgh, 2016), and the Meaning
Group at the University of Connecticut (2016), for comments and discussion. Part of this work was carried out
during a semester at Kyoto University in Fall, 2015. We are grateful to Yukinori Takubo, the Japan Society for the
Promotion of Science (Grant L-15504), and Kyoto University for their hospitality and support.
2 ‘S-tokoro’ can also occur in other environments, but its interpretation in such contexts does not differ significantly from that in (1), so we focus on the latter for the purposes of this paper.
1.1. Temporal ‘tokoro’ with non-statives
Our analysis of the tenses follows Kaufmann and Miyachi (2011; henceforth KM11). Sentences
denote binary relations between temporal intervals, i.e., sets of pairs hi, ji. In a non-stative
like (2a), the relation holds if and only if (i) j is the temporal trace of an event of Jon putting
on a red jacket; and (ii) either i < j (for Nonpast) or j < i (for Past). In Reichenbachian terms,
in matrix contexts i and j correspond to speech and reference time, respectively.
(2)
a.
b.
c.
Zyon-ga akai zyaketto-wo { ki-ru
/ ki-ta
}
Jon-nom red jacket-acc
put on-nonpast put on-past
‘Jon { will put on / put on } a red jacket’
[Zyon-ga akai zyaketto-wo ki-ru] tokoro { da / datta }
‘Jon { is / was } just about to put on a red jacket’
[Zyon-ga akai zyaketto-wo ki-ta] tokoro { da / datta }
‘Jon { has / had } just put on a red jacket’
In (2b), the Nonpast version of (2a) is embedded under ‘tokoro’ and the tensed copula. We
aim to give (2a) a uniform analysis for matrix and embedded contexts, thus we assume that,
as in (2a), the embedded clause ‘Zyon-ga akai zyaketto-wo ki-ru’ denotes a binary relation
between intervals hi, ji. Now, however, i and j correspond to the reference times of the matrix
clause and the embedded clause, respectively. Thus for (2b) and (2c) to be true, the matrix
reference time must precede and follow that of the embedded clause, respectively. In both
of (2b,c), the relation between the speech time and the matrix reference time is constrained
by the tense on the copula. The presence of ‘tokoro da/datta’ means that (2b,c) are stative (in
contrast to the non-stative (2a)). In this case, a co-temporal reading is available for Nonpast
‘datta’ under which speech and reference time coincide.
Thus (2b,c) basically assert that the reference time is/was before or after the dressing event,
respectively. One may wonder how they differ from their counterparts with ‘mae’ and ‘ato’,
the more canonical Japanese counterparts of ‘before’ and ‘after’. We discuss this relationship
in some detail below. For now, suffice it to say that (2b,c) are indeed close in meaning to
their counterparts in (3a,b), with the important difference that (2b,c) carry a connotation of
immediacy, expressed in (2) in our gloss using English ‘just’, which (3a,b) lack.
(3)
a.
b.
[Zyon-ga akai zyaketto-wo ki-ru] { mae / *ato } { da / datta }
‘Jon { is / was } just about to put on a red jacket’
[Zyon-ga akai zyaketto-wo ki-ta] { *mae / ato } { da / datta }
‘Jon { has / had } just put on a red jacket’
1.2. Temporal ‘tokoro’ with lexical statives
Stative clauses also denote binary relations between intervals but there are differences in detail
which lead to markedly different patterns in well-formedness and interpretion under ‘tokoro’.
In matrix-level statives, the interpretation is similar to that of non-statives, except that Nonpast
allows for speech and reference time to coincide. Thus in terms of the relationship between i, j,
we have j < i for Past (as with non-statives) and i ≤ j for Nonpast (cf. i < j for non-statives).
In embedded contexts, however, i must be contained in j; as a consequence, Past tense is
disallowed (hence the ill-formedness of (4c)) and Nonpast lacks the futurate interpretation on
which i < j. These facts are shared across a range of embedding contexts (see KM11 for data
and discussion), but ‘tokoro’ adds even more constraints: the embedded Nonpast in (4b) is also
peculiar. Most informants judge it to be marginal and, if acceptable at all, restricted to the
counterfactual reading indicated in the gloss.
(4)
Ie-ni
{ i-ru
/ i-ta
}
home-loc be-nonpast be-past
‘I { {am/will be} / was } at home.’
b. ?[Ie-ni i-ru] tokoro { da / datta }
‘I would { be / have been } at home.’
c. *Ie-ni i-ta tokoro { da / datta }
a.
In this paper we aim to explain the absence of a temporal reading for (4b). We leave the analysis
of the counterfactual reading for another occasion.
1.3. Temporal ‘tokoro’ with derived statives
In addition to lexical statives, Japanese has aspectual operators which form derived statives
from eventive complements. A well-studied expression of this kind is the suffix ‘-tei-’, which
combines with the stems of non-stative verbs3,4 and can have either progressive or perfect
readings, depending on the aspectual properties of the complement and contextual factors. This
is illustrated by (2a), which has the two readings indicated in the translation.
(5)
Zyon-ga akai zyaketto-wo { ki-tei-ru
/ ki-tei-ta
}
Jon-nom red jacket-acc
wear-tei-nonpast wear-tei-past
Progressive: ‘Jon { is / was } putting on a red jacket’
Perfect: ‘Jon { is / was } wearing a red jacket’
b. [Zyon-ga akai zyaketto-wo ki-tei-ru] tokoro { da / datta }
Progressive: ‘Jon { is / was } putting on a red jacket’
Perfect: ‘Jon would { be / have been } wearing a red jacket’
c. *[Zyon-ga akai zyaketto-wo ki-tei-ta] tokoro { da / datta }
a.
That one morpheme should have these two seemingly incompatible uses is puzzling and has
made ‘-tei-’ one of the most written-about expressions in the Japanese linguistic literature.
We postpone further discussion to the analysis below. For now, we only point out that the
3 Certain
other derivational morphemes can intervene between the verb stem and ‘-tei-’, for instance Passive,
Causative and Potentialis, but not Negation. The details are not relevant here.
4 The claim that ‘-tei-’ combines only with non-statives is widely accepted in the literature. Incompatibility
with ‘-tei-’ is Kindaichi’s (1950; 1976) main diagnostic for the class of stative verbs in his taxonomy (jôtaidôsi).
sentences derived with ‘-tei-’ exhibit an intriguing behavior when combined with ‘tokoro’, as
shown in (5b): On the Progressive reading of ‘-tei-’, ‘tokoro’ adds a purely temporal interpretation meaning ‘while/when’, even though no such interpretation is available either with lexical
statives, which force a counterfactual reading in this case (cf. (4b)), or with eventives, on which
the temporal interpretation would be ‘before’ (cf. (2b)). On the Perfect reading of ‘-tei-’, the
sentence patterns with lexical statives in that only a counterfactual reading is available. Notice
also that (5c) patterns with stative (4c) and not with eventive (2c) in that the string is ill-formed.
This is the main puzzle to be addressed in this paper: On the one hand, Progressive and Perfect
are generally considered derived statives, and the Japanese examples exhibit some properties
that are expected under this analysis (e.g., the ill-formedness of (5c) and the relationship between the matrix and embedded reference times in (5b)). On the other hand, under ‘tokoro’ the
Perfect is restricted to a counterfactual reading like other statives, while the Progressive has a
temporal reading – which, however, it unlike that obtained with non-statives.
2. Theoretical background
We develop our analysis in a slightly simplified version of the framework introduced by KM11.5
The major ingredients are shown in (6) along with their hierarchical structure in the sentence.
(6)
[ [ [ [ Sentence Radical ] Aspect ] Tense ] Environment ]
Sentence radicals come in two major classes, stative and non-stative. We are not concerned
here with the kind of sub-sentential aspectual composition that arises with quantification and
distributivity, for instance, but we do need a formal representation of the stative/non-stative
distinction. Aspectual operators impose temporal constraints on reference times and relate
events to times. We assume that ‘-tei-’ is such an operator. But even sentences without ‘-tei-’
or other overt aspectual markers include a covert aspectual operator. In this we follow KM11.
There are two tenses, Nonpast and Past, whose interpretation depends on the aspectual class of
their complement as well as on the difference between matrix and embedded contexts. What
we label as “Environment” in (6) is either the matrix context or one of a class of subordinating
expressions which includes ‘tokoro’.
2.1. The model
Let hT, ≺i be a non-empty set of temporal instants ordered by the transitive, irreflexive and
connected relation ≺. The temporal period structure induced by hT, ≺i is a triple hI, ⊆, <
i, where I is the set of non-empty convex subsets of T ,6 ⊆ is set-theoretic inclusion, and <
is the relation of strict precedence on I × I. An event structure is a join-semilattice hE, vi,
where E is a non-empty set of events and v is a partial order interpreted as the mereological
“sub-event” relation. A temporal model is an octuple hI, ⊆, <, E, v, τ, s, Vi, where hI, ⊆, <i is a
temporal period structure; hE, vi is an event structure; τ : E 7→ I maps events to their temporal
5 The
6A
simplification concerns KM11’s account of absolute tense under ‘toki’, which is orthogonal to this paper.
set T 0 ⊆ T is convex iff for all t, t0 , t00 , if t ≺ t0 ≺ t00 and t, t00 ∈ T 0 , then t0 ∈ T 0 .
traces, subject to the condition that for all e, e0 ∈ E, if e v e0 then τ(e) ⊆ τ(e0 ); s ∈ I is a (short)
interval representing the speech time; and V is an interpretation function mapping non-stative
and stative sentence radicals to (characteristic functions of) subsets of E and I, respectively.
We present our analysis as a compositional mapping from Japanese sentences to expressions in
an extensional type-theoretical language which are then to be interpreted in temporal models.
The basic types are i with Di = I (intervals), with D = E (events) and t with Dt = {0, 1} (truth
values). We do not define the language or its interpretetion explicitly because both will be
obvious. We do assume that it has variables i, j, k, . . . ranging intervals and e ranging over events;
symbols for unary predicates of intervals and events (corresponding to sentence radicals). We
overload the symbols s, τ, <, ⊆ (mapped to the speech time s, the temporal trace function, the
precedence relatin <, and the subinterval relation). We will define further symbols below.
2.2. Sentence radicals
Stative and non-stative sentence radicals denote properties of intervals and events, respectively.
(7)
Zyon-ga Nihon-ni iJon-nom Japan-loc be
‘Jon be in Japan’
{ λi ∈ I[JonInJapan(i)]
(8)
Zyon-ga Nihon-ni ikJon-nom Japan-loc go
‘Jon go to Japan’
{ λe ∈ E[JonToJapan(e)]
2.3. Aspectual operators
Next up in the structure in (6) is a slot for aspectual operators. The suffix ‘-tei’ mentioned
above is one of these operators; we also assume, following KM11, that sentences which do not
have an overt operator in this location have a covert one.7 Semantically, aspectual operators
map properties of intervals or events to binary relations between intervals. We use the symbols
in (9) for relations between intervals, in addition to the “strict precedence” relation already
defined in the model (see also Allen, 1983).
(9)
Relations between intervals
a. i ∅ j B i < j ∨ j < i
b. i b j B ∃k, l[k ⊆ j ∧ l ⊆ j ∧ k < i < l]
[non-overlap]
[non-initial, non-final subinterval]
These relations are used in the translations of the aspectual operators. We adopt from KM11 the
convention of using the names ϕ and ρ for variables over properties of intervals and properties
of events, respectively.8
7 This
simplifies the lexical entries of morphemes (such as tenses) that can combine with sentence radicals both
directly and via the mediation of aspectual operators.
8 We deviate slightly from KM11’s definition of ∅ for non-statives: their τ(e) ⊆ j, corresponds to our j = τ(e).
(10)
Aspectual operators
a. ∅
{ λϕhi,ti λiλ j[ϕ( j) ∧ [i , s → i b j]] ∪
λρh,ti λiλ j[∃e[ρ(e) ∧ j = τ(e)] ∧ i ∅ j]
b.
‘-tei-’ { λρh,ti λiλ j[∃e[ρ(e) ∧ tei(e, j) ] ∧ [i , s → i b j]]
At this point the expression “tei(e, j)” is just a placeholder. We return to this issue in Section 3,
where we fill in the details that explain why ‘tokoro’ can have a temporal interpretation with the
Progressive reading but not with the Perfect reading of ‘-tei-’. For now, we are more interested
in the last conjunct of the formula in (10b), which establishes the relationship between the two
intervals i, j. If i is not the speech time (i.e., in embedded contexts), it must be contained in
j, otherwise (i.e., in matrix contexts) it is not so constrained. This condition mirrors the one
imposed by the covert aspectual operator for lexical statives (the upper line in (10a)). This
is the sense in which we think it correct to say that clauses modified by ‘-tei-’ are (derived)
statives, regardless of whether the reading is Progressive or Perfect. The result of applying
these aspectual operators to sentence radicals in (7) and (8) is given in (11).
(11)
Zyon-ga nihon-ni { a.
i-∅ / b.
ik-∅ / c.
it-tei }
Jon-nom Japan-loc
be
go
go-tei
Jon { be in / go to / go-tei to } Japan
a. { λiλ j[JonInJapan( j) ∧ [i , s → i b j]]
b. { λiλ j∃e[JonToJapan(e) ∧ j = τ(e) ∧ i ∅ j]
c. { λiλ j[∃e[JonToJapan(e) ∧ tei(e, j) ] ∧ [i , s → i b j]]
2.4. Tense
Next up in our structure (6) are the tenses. As mentioned above, there are two tenses in
Japanese, Nonpast and Past, typically expressed on verbs with some allomorph of ‘-ru’ and
‘-ta’, respectively, except for the copula, whose forms are ‘-da’ and ‘-datta’.9
(12)
(13)
Tenses
a.
nonpast { λiλ j[i ≤ j]
past { λiλ j[ j < i]
Zyon-ga nihon-ni { a. i-ru / b. i-ta / c. ik-u / d. it-ta / e. it-tei-ru / f. it-tei-ta }
Jon-nom Japan-loc
be-np
be-p
go-np
go-p
go-tei-np
go-tei-p
‘Jon {is in / was in / is going to / went to / . . . } Japan’
a. { λiλ j[JonInJapan( j) ∧ i ≤ j ∧ [i , s → i b j]]
b. { λiλ j[JonInJapan( j) ∧ j < i ∧ [i , s → i b j]]10
c. { λiλ j[∃e[JonToJapan(e) ∧ j = τ(e)] ∧ i < j]
d. { λiλ j[∃e[JonToJapan(e) ∧ j = τ(e)] ∧ j < i]
e. { λiλ j[∃e[JonToJapan(e) ∧ tei(e, j) ] ∧ i ≤ j ∧ [i , s → i b j]]
f.
9 One
b.
{ λiλ j[∃e[JonToJapan(e) ∧ tei(e, j) ] ∧ j < i ∧ [i , s → i b j]]10
class of adjectives also carries tense, expressed with ‘-i’ and ‘-katta’ for Nonpast and Past, respectively.
The negative suffixe ‘-na{-i/-katta}’ belongs to this paradigm.
10 Notice that (13b,f) imply that i = s, in line with the observation that Past statives only occur in matrix contexts.
Table 1: Temporal constraints contributed by temporal connectives (top row) and their clausal
complements (left column), and the resulting well-/ill-formedness of the combinations.
ik-u
it-ta
it-tei-ruprog
it-tei-ruperf
i-ru
i-ta
i< j
j<i
ib j
ib j
ib j
7
mae ‘before’
i< j
ato ‘after’
j<i
uti ‘while’
ib j
toki ‘when’
·
tokoro
???
‘before’
*
*
*
*
*
*
‘after’
*
*
*
*
*
*
‘while’
‘while’
‘while’
*
‘before’
‘after’
‘while’
‘while’
‘while’
*11
‘right before’
‘right after’
‘while’
*/cf
*/cf
*
2.5. Embedding environments
Next up we now reach the position filled by ‘tokoro’ or other embedding temporal expressions,
such as ‘toki’ ‘when’, ‘mae’ ‘before’, etc. It is instructive to compare several such items to
‘tokoro’. In (14) we give four examples along with their interpretations from KM11.
(14)
a.
b.
c.
d.
mae ‘before’ { λϕhi,hi,tii λhλi∃ j[ϕ(i)( j) ∧ i < j]
ato ’after’ { λϕhi,hi,tii λhλi∃ j[ϕ(i)( j) ∧ j < i]
uti ‘while’ { λϕhi,hi,tii λhλi∃ j[ϕ(i)( j) ∧ i b j]
toki ‘when’ { λϕhi,hi,tii λhλi∃ j[ϕ(i)( j)]
All of these items are of the same type, viz. hhi, hi, tii, hi, hi, tiii (i.e., modifiers of binary relations between intervals). Their arguments are the denotations of tensed sentences – relations
between intervals i, j which, in matrix sentences, are interpreted as the speech time and the
reference time, respectively. In (14) we see that a new time is introduced when tensed sentences are embedded under temporal connectives. The idea is that now h, i are interpreted as
the speech and reference time of the matrix sentence, and i anchors the temporal interpretation
of the embedded clause. The relation that the embedded sentence imposes on i, j is now, in
Reichenbachian terms, imposed on the reference time and event time of the embedded clause.
The semantic contribution of most of the items in (14) is an added condition on the temporal
relation between i, j (an exception is ‘toki’, which does not add any new constraint). This condition is conjoined with whatever the complement clause already requires of the two intervals.
The result may be a contradiction, resulting in ill-formedness (e.g., in the case of ‘mae’ ‘before’
with Past tense or ‘ato’ ‘after’ with Nonpast). Some or the results are shown in (15) and (16).
11 Past
statives can in principle occur in embedding contexts, but only with an absolute reading of the Past tense
(i.e., one anchored to the speech time rather than the matrix reference time). Whether such a reading is available
depends on the embedding connective. It is not available under ‘tokoro’, therefore we ignore it in this paper. It is
available under ‘toki’, hence the asterisk in the corresponding cell in our table is a simplification. See Kaufmann
and Miyachi (2011) for details.
(15)
(16)
Zyon-ga nihon-ni { a. ik-u
/ b. *it-ta } mae
Jon-nom Japan-loc
go-npst
go-pst before
‘before Jon {goes / went} to Japan’
a. { λhλi∃ j[∃e[JonToJapan(e) ∧ j = τ(e)] ∧ i < j ∧ i < j]
b. { λhλiλ j[∃e[JonToJapan(e) ∧ j = τ(e)] ∧ i < j ∧ j < i]
3
7
Zyon-ga nihon-ni i-ru
{ a. *mae / b. *ato / c. uti / d. toki }
Jon-nom Japan-loc be-npst
before
after
while
when
‘{before / after / while / when} Jon {is / was} in Japan’
a. { λhλi∃ j[JonInJapan( j) ∧ i < j ∧ i b j] 7
b. { λhλi∃ j[JonInJapan( j) ∧ j < i ∧ i b j] 7
c. { λhλi∃ j[JonInJapan( j) ∧ i b j ∧ i b j] 3
d. { λhλi∃ j[JonInJapan( j) ∧ i b j] 3
Table 1 shows the overall pattern resulting from the interaction between the various temporal
constraints. iku ‘go’ and iru ‘be’ are non-stative and stative, respectively. The rightmost column
shows the data with ‘tokoro’ that we outlined earlier. Our goal is to add a semantic entry for
‘tokoro’, replacing the question marks in the top row.
There are three major challenges to this project. First, as seen in the table, ‘tokoro’ is sensitive
to a distinction that the other particles do not track, distinguishing between the upper three rows
(Nonstative ik-u/it-ta ‘go’; Progressive reading of ‘-teiru’) and the lower rows (Stative i-ru/ita ‘to be’, and Perfect reading of ‘-teiru’). None of the other connectives is sensitive to this
distinction, nor is it expressed in the relation between the intervals i, j, which was sufficient to
account for the patterns discussed so far. Secondly, ‘tokoro’ adds a connotation of “immediacy”
to the temporal relations in the top rows, which our rendering in English as ‘right before’ and
‘right after’ is intended to convey. Finally, ‘tokoro’ alone has a counterfactual reading in cases
in which a temporal reading is unavailable.
3. Analysis
We address the challenges just discussed in terms of an interaction between ‘tokoro’’s aspectual properties and a certain notion of “immediacy.” For instance, recall that with non-stative
complements, ‘tokoro’ comes to mean ‘right before’ or ‘right after’, depending on the embedded tense. We want to formalize this notion in such a way that the more peculiar properties of
‘tokoro’ – its well-formedness with Progressive but not with Perfect ‘-teiru’ and the availability
of a counterfactual reading with Perfect ‘-teiru’ and statives – also fall out.
One way to describe the peculiar behavior of ‘tokoro’ in combination with ‘-teiru’ is that on
the Progressive reading of ‘-teiru’ these sentences behave like non-statives, whereas on the
Perfect reading they behave like statives. We need to explain, not only why one and the same
morpheme, ‘-tei-’, can have such disparate uses, but also why on the Progressive use it has a
certain eventive “flavor” which is absent from the Perfect use.
What is this eventive “flavor,” and how should it be represented? It is a widely held view that
events involve change or development of some kind, and that their progress can be measured
in various ways, whereas states have none of those properties. The stative/non-stative distinction is often taken to be an ontological fact about different kinds of enventualities (Smith, 1991;
Bach, 198612 ); the notion that events can be measured is discussed and formalized in various
ways depending on whether the measurement draws on incremental themes, expressions of creation, changes of state or degree, paths, or yet some other notion (Dowty, 1991; Krifka, 1989,
1992; Tenny, 1994; Hay et al., 1999; Kennedy and Levin, 2008, i.a.).
In this paper we stop short of committing ourselves to a particular view on the origins of event
measurement. We are more interested in the question of how, once such measurement is introduced, it can have repercussions throughout the compositional process. For recall that ‘tokoro’
does not combine directly with event-denoting sentence radicals, and not even with ‘radical+tei’ compounds. Instead, it combines with tensed clauses, and we have been assuming throughout that tensed clauses denote binary relations between temporal intervals. Since there is no
direct link to the underlying eventualities, the “eventive flavor” of the Progressive cannot be
implemented straightforwardly in terms of the denotatum of ‘tokoro’’s complement. Instead,
we need a way to let the stative/non-stative distinction that is accessible lower in the derivation
leave an “imprint” the intervals higher up.
To implement this, we enrich our representation of temporal traces. We do this in two steps:
in Section, 3.1, give ‘-tei-’ access to different phases of an event (viz. its run-time and its result
state, where available); in Section 3.2 we add a representation of event measurement.
3.1. The versatility of ‘-tei-’
While space does not permit us to do justice to the extensive literature on ‘-tei-’, we do need to
introduce the basic facts about its semantic versatility. Most discussions of ‘-tei-’ distinguish at
least three readings: Progressive, Resultative Perfect, and Experiential Perfect. Which of them
are available for a particular sentence containing ‘-tei-’ depends on the prejacent’s aspectual
properties (and possibly other factors). The clearest cases exhibiting all readings are accomplishments with an activity phase and a result state. The examples in (17) are from Igarashi and
Gunji (1998), adjusted to our transliteration and glosses. (17a,b) illustrate the Progressive and
Resultative Perfect readings, as highlighted by the English glosses. In (17c), the combination of
the past adverbial ‘sannen mae-ni’ ‘three years ago’ with Nonpast tense forces the Experiential
Perfect reading (Fujii, 1976; Ogihara, 1998).
(17)
a.
b.
12 Bach
Ken-wa ima tonari-no heya-de kimono-wo ki-tei-ru
Ken-top now next-gen room-loc kimono-acc put on-tei-npst
‘Ken is now putting on a kimono in the next room’
Ken-wa kesa
kara zutto ano kimono-wo ki-tei-ru
Ken-top this morning from always that kimono-acc put on-tei-npst
‘Ken has been wearing that kimono since this morning’
[prog]
[result]
distinguishes states, processes and events, with the latter two being subsumed under the class of “nonstates.” We use the labels “non-stative” and “eventive” interchangeably.
c.
Ken-wa ano kimono-wo sannen
mae-ni
ki-tei-ru
[exp]
Ken-top that kimono-acc three years before-loc put on-tei-npst
(i) ‘Ken has the experience of putting on that kimono three years ago’ [exp ı]
(ii) ‘Ken has the experience of wearing that kimono three years ago’ [exp ıı]
Igarashi and Gunji (1998) argue that the Experiential (17c) can actually have two readings,
depending on which of the two phases of the accomplishment – the putting on or the wearing
of the kimono – is said to have taken place in the past. The two translations in (17c) are meant to
bring out that difference. Gunji (2004) puts even more emphasis on this distinction, extending
the traditional tripartite taxonomy by treating the two variants of the Experiential Perfect as
distinct (though related) readings. This allows him to account for the full picture in terms
of the interplay between two independent dimensions of variation: Activity vs. Result State
reading of the prejacent, and Ongoing vs. Anterior reading of ‘-tei-’.13 The competing view
of the traditional tripartite taxonomy is that the distinction between Activity and Resultative
reading of the prejacent is only relevant under the Ongoing reading of ‘-tei-’, but neutralized
under its Anterior reading (Ogihara, 1998).
We adopt (Igarashi and) Gunji’s position that there is a major distinction between the Progressive and Resultative Perfect reading on the one hand, and the Experiential reading(s) on the
other.14 This distinction seems related to a grammatical difference, as shown by the ability of
past adverbials to co-occur with Present tense only under the Experiential reading.15 We stop
short of postulating two distinct readings of the Experiential, however. This is in part because
space is limited and a formal implementation which draws the distinction would require further
modifications to the framework. Moreover, most informants report having a hard time seeing a
clear semantic difference between the two readings. For the purposes of this paper, at least, we
treat (17c) as one reading in which the Activity/Result State distinction is neutralized.
For our formal analysis, this means that we need to encode two distinctions: the Activity/Result
State distinction for the prejacent, and the Ongoing/Anterior distinction for ‘-tei-’. Furthermore, we follow those who assume that the two distinctions are not independent: Activity and
Result State are only distinguished under Ongoing ‘-tei-’. Finally, we want to account for the
fact that past adverbials can occur with Nonpast tense under Anterior but not Ongoing ‘-tei-’.
We start with Ongoing ‘-tei-’ and the two readings it gives rise to. Our preliminary definition
13 Gunji
uses different terminology: at both levels, he distinguishes a basic view (基本視野; in our terminology,
Activity at the level of the precedent and Ongoing at the level of ‘-tei-’) from a stative view (状態視野, our Result
State (prejacent) and Anterior (‘-tei-’)). We prefer our terminologoy for its mnenomic value (for us), but nothing
hinges on this choice. Notice also that Gunji considers ‘-tei-’ complex. He attributes the Ongoing/Anterior
distinction to the semantics of ‘-te-’ alone, while taking ‘i’ to be semantically inert.
14 A separate class of approaches, which we do not discuss in detail here, seeks to unify the Resultative Perfect
and the Experiential Perfect reading, setting them apart from the Progressive. See Ogihara (1998) for discussion.
15 Past adverbials can modify sentences with ‘-tei-’ under the other readings, but only if the matrix tense is Past:
(i)
Ken-wa ano kimono-wo sannen
mae-ni
ki-tei-ta
Ken-top that kimono-acc three years before-loc wear-tei-pst
‘Ken was { putting on / wearing } that kimono three years ago.’
These cases do not pose a problem for our analysis on the assumption that the adverb here has ‘-tei-’ in its scope,
rather than vice versa.
of ‘-tei-’ from (10b) is repeated in (17).
(10b)
(preliminary) λρh,ti λiλ j[∃e[ρ(e) ∧ tei(e, j) ] ∧ [i , s → i b j]]
We now need to spell out the expression tei(e, j) in the box in (10b). The idea is that ‘-tei-’
makes the inner stages of an event available for linguistic reference. We could simply replace
the the box with the condition that j = τ(e), thus locating i within the runtime of the event in
embedded contexts. However, this would only make the Progressive interpretation available,
not the Perfect.
To add the Perfect, we adapt from Igarashi and Gunji (1998); Gunji (2004) the main idea behind their classification. In principle, not one but two intervals can be associated with an event
in the extension of a sentence radical: one is the familiar temporal trace of the event itself, the
other is the interval over which its result state holds.16 Whether both of these intervals are available depends on the aspectual class: activities have no lexically encoded result state, whereas
achievements may have a result state but no temporal extension in the triggering change-of-state
event (i.e., no interval corresponding to an Activity part). Consequently, under ‘-tei-’, activities
typically only have Progressive readings and achievements only Result state readings, whereas
accomplishments can have both.
Formally, we define an extended temporal trace function τ+ from events to sets of (one or two)
intervals. The intention is that τ+ (e) is true of the conventional temporal trace τ(e) but also of
the maximal interval of which e’s result state holds, in case the latter is defined. In (18) we use
the auxiliary notation result for the partial function mapping events to their result states.17
(18)
Extended temporal trace
For all events e, τ+ (e) B λi[i = τ(e) ∨ ∃ j[ j = result(e) ∧ i = j]]
Our definition for Ongoing ‘-tei-’ draws on this notion:
(19)
‘-tei-’ ong { λρh,ti λiλ j[∃e[ρ(e) ∧ τ+ (e)( j)] ∧ [i , s → i b j]]
We now turn to the Anterior reading of ‘-tei-’. What would seem to be the most straightforward
way to include this reading – by modifying (19) to allow for the case that j < i – is not viable.
This is because Anterior ‘-tei-’ allows for the coexistence of past adverbs like ‘kyonen’ ‘last
16 Note
that Igarashi and Gunji’s implementation differs from ours: their constraints refert to the boundaries of
the intervals in question, calling them the “start time” and “finish time” of the event (the latter also serving as the
start time of the result state, where applicable), and the “reset time” marking the end of the result state. Aside
from this difference, and modulo further fine distinctions that we cannot go into for lack of space, the intuitions
are similar to our implementation, as far as we can see.
17 This way of implementing the idea has certain consequences for the underlying notion of events. Ogihara
(Ogihara, 1998, p. 96) points out that two different descriptions of the same state of affairs can have different
aspectual properties. For instance, different sentences referring to the same opening of a door may or may not
have Progressive readings depending on the grammatical form. This means that the value of τ+ (e) may differ
depending on the sentence used. In order to avoid untoward consequences of this possibility (e.g., ensuring the τ+
is a function), we have to assume that in such cases the model actually contains two distinct events representing
the very same opening of the door which can serve as denotations of the different linguistic expressions.
year’ with Nonpast tense. In our framework, this would mean that the adverb places j within
the year preceding that of the speech time, while the Nonpast tense rules out the possibility that
j precedes i, leading to contradictory constraints in matrix contexts (where i ends up referring to
the speech time). We avoid this unwelcome consequence by giving Anterior ‘-tei-’ a denotation
of an altogether different type and assuming that in the syntactic derivation it behaves in some
respects more like a tense than an aspectual operator. Specifically, we assume that it co-occurs
with, and outscopes, the covert aspectual operator ∅. Consequently, its complement denotes
a relation between intervals, not a property of events, and this makes it possible for temporal
adverbs to scope lower than ‘-tei-’. At the same time, as seen in the denotation in (20b), ‘tei-’ introduces an additional interval k at which the prejacent ϕ is evaluated and which can be
constrained by temporal adverbs. The tense above ‘-tei-’, meanwhile, constrains the relation
between i and j. Thus past adverbs and present tense may co-occur without contradiction.18
(20)
a.
b.
‘-tei-’ ong { λρh,ti λiλ j[∃e[ρ(e) ∧ τ+ (e)( j)] ∧ [i , s → i b j]]
‘-tei-’ ant { λϕhhi,ti,hhi,ti,tii λiλ j[∃k[ϕ( j)(k) ∧ k < j] ∧ [i , s → i b j]]
We illustrate with a few examples. (21) is a matrix sentence with the temporal adverb ‘kyonen’
‘last year’. (21a) shows the denotation (the conditions imposed by Present or Past tense are
listed in the last conjunct) which is then evaluated at the speech time s (fixed by the model)
and reference time r (contributed by context). In this case the two constraints contributed by
lastyear and tense are imposed on the same pair of intervals s, r. The ill-formedness of the
Present-tense variant arises at this point due to the inconsistency of lastyear(s)(r) and s ≤ r.19
(21)
Kyonen kimono-wo ki- { *ru / ta }
last year kimono-acc wear npst pst
[ [kyonen [ [kimono-wo ki ] ∅ ] ] { *ru / ta } ]
a. { λiλ j[∃e[KimonoKi(e) ∧ j = τ(e)] ∧ i ∅ j ∧ lastyear(s)( j) ∧ {i ≤ j/ j < i}]
(21a)(s)(r) ⇔ ∃e[KimonoKi(e) ∧ r = τ(e)] ∧ lastyear(s)(r) ∧ r < s
We next turn to ‘-tei-’. For ease of exposition, we list examples of its Ongoing and Anterior use
separately. The surface strings are indistinguishable, but we indicate the respective intended
derivations in the bracketed representations. First consider Ongoing ‘-tei-’, which due to its
type must combine directly with the sentence radical and scope under the temporal adverb.
Only the Past-tense variant of the sentence can have this reading; the Nonpast is ruled out in the
same way as the Nonpast of (21) above. Which readings (Activity and/or Result State Perfect)
(22) can have depends on which intervals are made available by the extended temporal trace
τ+ (e). Which reading it has in any particular instance further depends on how τ+ (e) applies
to j (ultimately, r): it is a (non-initial and non-final) subinterval of either τ(e), giving rise to the
Activity reading, or of result(e), corresponding to the Result State Perfect reading.
18 The
reader may notice that according to (20b) the “high” ‘-tei-’ has the same type as the tenses – both are
modifiers of binary relations between structured intervals. This means that the denotations do not by themselves
enforce the observed structural relationship, i.e., that tense invariably sits higher in the syntactic tree than ‘-tei-’.
We assume that this relationship is enforced independently by syntactic factors.
19 Note that it is not the past reference per se that is incompatible with Present tense. For instance, embedded
under connectives like ‘toki’ ‘when’ and ‘mae’ ‘before’, Present tense is not interpreted as restricting s, r and can
thus happily coexist with past intervals like ‘kyonen’.
(22)
Kyonen kimono-wo ki-teiong - { *ru / ta }
last year kimono-acc wear-tei
npst pst
[ [ kyonen [ [ kimono-wo ki ] tei ] ] ta ]
[past activity/past result]
+
a. { λiλ j[∃e[KimonoKi(e) ∧ τ (e)( j)] ∧ lastyear(s)( j) ∧ j < i]
(22a)(s)(r) ⇔ ∃e[KimonoKi(e) ∧ τ+ (e)(r)] ∧ lastyear(s)(r) ∧ r < s
For the Anterior reading of ‘-tei-’, we do not predict that past adverbs with Nonpast tense result
in inconsistency. This is shown in (23).
(23)
Kyonen kimono-wo ki-teiant -ru
last year kimono-acc wear-tei-npst
[ [ [ kyonen [ [ kimono-wo ki ] ∅ ] ] tei ] ru ]
[pres exp]
a. { λiλ j∃k[∃e[KimonoKi(e) ∧ k = τ(e)] ∧ k ∅ j ∧ lastyear(s)(k) ∧ k < j ∧ i ≤ j]
(23a)(s)(r) ⇔ ∃k[∃e[KimonoKi(e) ∧ k = τ(e)] ∧ lastyear(s)(k) ∧ k < r ∧ s ≤ r]
But we do not predict Anterior ‘-tei-’ to be inconsistent with Past tense either. In fact, we derive
two readings for (24), corresponding to two positions of the adverb relative to ‘-tei-’. On the
reading in (24a/b), the adverb restricts k, the event of putting on the kimono; the reference time
r, which must lie strictly between k and s, is thus a time at which the experiential state holds.
On this interpretation the sentence means that at some point in the recent past (say, a week
ago) it was true (or it turned out) that the subject had worn a kimono last year. On the reading
in (24c/d) the adverb restricts the reference time r, while the time k of wearing the kimono must
be found at an even earlier time. In other words, it turned out last year that (already then) the
subject had the experience of having worn a kimono. We take it that both readings exist.
(24)
Kyonen kimono-wo ki-teiant -ta
last year kimono-acc wear-tei-pst
a. [ [ [ kyonen [ [ kimono-wo ki ] ∅ ] ] tei ] ta ]
[past exp]
b. { λiλ j∃k[∃e[KimonoKi(e) ∧ k = τ(e)] ∧ k ∅ j ∧ lastyear(s)(k) ∧ k < j ∧ j < i]
(24a)(s)(r) ⇔ ∃k[∃e[KimonoKi(e) ∧ k = τ(e)] ∧ lastyear(s)(k) ∧ k < r ∧ r < s]
c. [ [ kyonen [ [ [ kimono-wo ki ] ∅ ] tei ] ] ta ]
[past exp]
d. { λiλ j∃k[∃e[KimonoKi(e) ∧ k = τ(e)] ∧ k ∅ j ∧ k < j ∧ lastyear(s)( j) ∧ j < i]
(24c)(s)(r) ⇔ ∃k[∃e[KimonoKi(e) ∧ k = τ(e)] ∧ k < r ∧ lastyear(s)(r) ∧ r < s]
3.2. Event measurement
Tradionally, the temporal trace of an event has been taken to be an interval (assigned to the event
by the function τ, Krifka (1989)), and we have followed this convention thus far. The left-hand
side of Figure 1 is an illustration. We propose a straightforward modification of this simple
picture: The temporal trace function τS maps events to structured intervals, our term for sets
of intervals which contain their own union.20 In our type-theoretic compositional framework,
structured intervals are represented by their characteristic functions, i.e., in Dhi,ti , and we use
20 In
fact, the structured intervals we consider here are nests of final subintervals; but we refrain from imposing
those stronger properties by definition since nothing in our proposal depends on them.
e
e
τ(e) ⊆ I
τK (e) ∈ I
i
E{i}
Eτ(e)
T
Figure 1: Left: Temporal trace τ mapping events to intervals. Middle: Temporal trace τS
mapping events to structured intervals (top) and induced order Eτ(e) on T (bottom). Right:
Stative denotation i (top) and pre-order E{i} on T (bottom).
variables i, j, etc. to range over them. For ease of expositions, we switch between talk of these
characteristic functions and the sets of intervals they characterize, using variables like A, B,
etc. for the latter. No confusion should result from this.
(25)
A set A of intervals is a structured interval iff ∪A is an element of A.
The relations between intervals defined above can be extended to stuctured intervals straightforwardly as follows:
(26)
A < B B ∪A < ∪B
A ∅ B B ∪A ∅ ∪B
A b B B ∪A b ∪B
A ⊃⊂ B B ∪A ⊃⊂ ∪B
The shift from simple to structured temporal traces does not affect their durations, just their
internal structure. Thus we assume that each τS (e) contains τ(e) as its greatest element.
(27)
A structured temporal trace is a function τS mapping events to structured intervals,
subject to the condition that for all events e, τ(e) = ∪τS (e).
Next, we use sets of intervals to derive a pre-order on the entire set T of times as in (28).21
For our example in Figure 1, the relative ranking of the equivalence classes of the pre-order
induced by τ(e) is shown in the lower middle graph.
(28)
Induced pre-order on T
Let A be a set of intervals. The pre-order EA on T induced by A is defined as follows:
t EA t0 iff all intervals in A which contain t also contain t0 .
This latter change also affects the interpretation of statives. Recall from above that they were
mapped to properties of intervals. This remains unchanged, but now what gets passed up in
the compositional process is the singleton sets containing those intervals. Singleton sets of
intervals induce single-step pre-orders as shown on the right-hand side in Figure 1. There, all
points in i are ranked equally and strictly higher than any point outside of i. This is in line with
21 This
notion of an induced pre-order is inspired by Kratzer’s treatment of modality (Kratzer, 1981, i.a.); but
notice that here the order is reversed, in the sense that times that are contained in more intervals are ranked higher,
rather than lower.
the intuition that the denotations of statives do not involve any notion of change or development.
The switch to set-valued temporal traces requires minor adjustments to the overall system. Recall that our goal is to allow for expressions higher up in the syntactic tree, such ‘tokoro’, which
do not directly compose with event-denoting sentence radicals, to have access to the structure
of the temporal traces despite the interventing tenses (and possibly other temporal/aspectual
material). We achieve this by generalizing to the worst case, as it were, using structured intervals throughout the compositional process. For the most part, that change is insignificant. For
instance, the denotation of the covert aspectual operator ‘∅’, first given in (10a) above, changes
to (29). The upper line, for stative complements, requires that there be an interval k of which
ϕ is true and such that j is the singleton set containing k. The lower line, for non-statives, now
implies that j encodes the structure of e. However, this information about the structure of e
leaves no imprint on i, since i and j are required to be disjoint.
(29)
∅
{ λϕhi,ti λiλj∃ j[ϕ( j) ∧ j = λk[k = j]] ∧ [i , s → i b j]]∪
λρh,ti λiλj[∃e[ρ(e) ∧ j = τS (e)] ∧ i ∅ j]
In fact, to keep things simple, it is a good idea to assume that the structured intervals used in
the derivation are generally singleton unless they are non-trivially structured by the temporal
trace of an event. Formally, this can be done by defining a predicate in the translation language
that is true of structured intervals just in case they are singleton (e.g., sg(i) B ∃i[i = λ j[ j = i]])
and assert this predicate of all the intervals that are not used to record event measurement
(i.e., i in (29), j in (31a), and both i,j in (31b)). We refrain from doing so in the interest of
readability, but we do make the assumption that the structured intervals are singleton unless
stated otherwise, and this assumption will in fact be significant below.
For the denotation of ‘-tei-’, we redefine the notion of an extended temporal trace. Recall
from (18) above that τ+ (e) is the property of being either the traditional temporal trace τ(e)
or the result state result(e). From τ+ and the notion of a structured temporal trace τS we now
define a function mapping events to properties of structured events: T(e) is the property of
being either the structured trace τS (e) or the singleton set result(e).
(30)
Let τ+ be an extended temporal trace function and τS a structured temporal trace function defined on the same domain. The corresponding extended structural temporal
trace function T maps events to properties of structured intervals as follows:
T(e) = λi[i = τS (e) ∨ ∃ j[ j = result(e) ∧ i = λk[k = j]]]
With this notion in place, we adjust our definition of ‘-tei-’ to structured intervals as in (31).
(31)
a.
b.
‘-tei-’ ong { λρh,ti λiλj[∃e[ϕ(e) ∧ T(e)(j)] ∧ [i , s → i b j]]
‘-tei’ ant { λϕhhi,ti,hhi,ti,tii λiλj∃k[ϕ(j)(k) ∧ k < j ∧ [i , s → i b j]
3.3. ‘Tokoro’: the uphill condition
‘Tokoro’ takes as its complement a tensed clause, which as we saw denotes a binary relation be-
j<i
3
3
3
ibj
Ej
ibj
Ej
i<j
7
Figure 2: Permissible (left) and excluded (right) positions of i relative to the order induced by j.
tween structured intervals, constrained by the temporal semantics of the complement. ‘Tokoro’
adds a single further condition on the pairs i,j in this relation: informally put, i must be adjacent
to an interval with strictly higher “j-ness.” Somewhat more formally: i must abut an interval
which ranks strictly higher than i on the order induced by j. We introduce special terms and
notation for this relationship in (32) and give the denotation of ‘tokoro’ as in (33).
(32)
Uphill and downhill
Let i and j be structured intervals. i is downhill from j (and j is uphill from i), written
i j , iff there is an interval k such that ∪i Ej k and ∪i ⊃⊂ k
‘tokoro’ { λϕhhi,ti,hhi,ti,tii λhλi∃j[ϕ(i)(j) ∧ i
(33)
j]
Figure 2 shows various possible locations of i relative to an order Ej , all of which may be delivered by the compositional semantics of the prejacent of ‘tokoro’. For instance, the pictures
on the left are consistent with the denotations of a non-stative clause with simple Past, Progressive ‘-tei-’ plus Present, and simple Present. These options are illustrated in (34) and (35).22
In (34), where the precedence relation between i and j is fixed by the tense and aspect of the
prejacent, ‘tokoro’ strengthens this requirement to immediate precedence. In (35), the inclusion of i within j is ensured by ‘-tei-’,23 and ‘tokoro’ imposes in the additional condition that j
have internal structure, i.e., that it be the temporal trace of an activity (or of the activity phase
of an accomplishment). This is the case for the Progressive reading of ‘-tei-’.
Taro-ga { aruku
// aruita
} tokoro { da
/ datta
}
Taro-nom walk-npst walk-past tokoro cop-npst cop-past
‘Taro {is/was} about to walk // {has/had} just walked’
a. λhλi∃j[∃e[TaroAruk(e) ∧ j = τS (e)] ∧ i ∅ j ∧ {i ≤ j//j < i} ∧ i j ∧ {h ≤ i/i < h}]
(34a)(s)(r) ⇔
∃j[∃e[TaroAruk(e) ∧ j = τS (e)] ∧ {r < j//j < r} ∧ r j ∧ {s ≤ r/r < s}]
(35)
Taro-ga arui-tei- { ru // *ta } tokoro { da
/ datta }
Taro-nom walk-tei- npst
past tokoro cop-npst cop-pst
‘Taro {is/was} walking.’
a. λhλi∃j[∃e[TaroAruk(e) ∧ T(e)(j)] ∧ i b j ∧ {i ≤ j//j < i} ∧ i j ∧ {h ≤ i/i < h}]
(35a)(s)(r) ⇔ ∃h[∃e[TaroAruk(e) ∧ T(e)(j)] ∧ r b j ∧ r j ∧ {s ≤ r/r < s}]
(34)
22 Notice
that the matrix tense in these sentences is irrelevant for the present discussion, since it constrains the
relation between h and i, which does not interact with ‘tokoro’.
23 Here Past tense on the prejacent is ruled out because the position under ‘tokoro’ is an embedding context.
Statives, on the other hand, do not have the right temporal denotations to serve as the prejacents
of ‘tokoro’. This is shown for lexically statives in (36). Here i is placed within j, similarly to
the Progressive reading available for (35) above; this time, however, the order induced by j is
flat around i, thus the contour condition imposed by ‘tokoro’ is not met, as on the right-hand
side in Figure 2. The Perfect reading of (35) is ruled out in the same way.
(36)
Zyon-ga Nihon-ni { iru
// *ita
} tokoro { da
/ datta
}
Jon-nom Japan-loc be-npst
be-past tokoro cop-npst cop-past
a. λhλi∃j[∃ j[JonInJapan( j) ∧ j = λk[k = j]] ∧ i b j ∧ i j ∧ {h ≤ i/i < h}]
(36a)(s)(r) ⇔ ∃j[∃ j[JonInJapan( j) ∧ j = λk[k = j]] ∧ r b j ∧ r j ∧ {s ≤ r/r < s}]
Finally, the Anterior reading of ‘-tei-’ is also incompatible with ‘tokoro’. The corresponding
structure and interpretation for (35) is shown in (35’).
(35’)
[ [ [ [ [ [Taro-ga aruk ] ∅ ] teiant ] {ru/*ta} ] tokoro ] {da/datta} ]
‘Taro {has/had} the experience of walking.’
a. λhλi∃j∃k[∃e[TaroAruk(e) ∧ k = τS (e)] ∧ k < j ∧ i b j ∧ i j ∧ {h ≤ i/i < h}]
(36a)(s)(r) ⇔
∃j∃k[∃e[TaroAruk(e) ∧ k = τS (e)] ∧ k < j ∧ r b j ∧ r j ∧ {s ≤ r/r < s}]
It is worth noting that the formula in (35’a) as it stands does not imply contradiction and illformedness, since it does not require j to be a singleton structured interval. This is not as it
should be, since ‘-tei-’ does not in fact have an experiential reading under ‘tokoro’ (except
for the counterfactual reading, which we do not deal with in this paper). It is here that our
assumption that all structured intervals are singleton unless stated otherwise comes into play.
We predict the unavailability of this reading if (and since) we assume that j in (36) is singleton,
even though in the interest of readability we refrain from enforcing this in the formulas.
4. Conclusion
Rather than summarize what we have accomplished in this paper, we mention two things we
left for future work. We already mentioned that we did not deal with counterfactual readings
of lexical statives and non-Progressive ‘-tei-’ under ‘tokoro’. We also did not touch on cases
in which contextually given information can rescue a temporal reading. For instance, (37) can
have a temporal interpretation even under a resultative reading of ‘-tei-’, as indicated by the
English gloss, if the state in question occurs as part of a set sequence of eventualities, as for
instance in describing which outfit a model is wearing at this point as part of an ongoing fashion
show.
(37)
Tada ima kimono-wo ki-tei-ru
tokoro da.
right now kimono-acc wear-tei-npst tokoro cop-npst
‘She’s in the kimono right now.’
We leave a full analysis of these cases to a future occasion.
References
Allen, J. F. (1983). Maintaining knowledge about temporal intervals. Communications of the
ACM 26, 832–843.
Bach, E. (1986). The algebra of events. Linguistics and Philosophy 9, 5–16.
Dowty, D. (1991). Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67, 547–619.
Fujii, T. (1976). “Dōshi + teiru” no imi. See Kindaichi (1976). [The semantics of Verb + teiru].
Gunji, T. (2004). Nihongo no asupekuto to hanzizitu kasô. Theoretical and Applied Linguistics
at Kobe Shoin 7, 21–34. [=Japanese Aspects and Counterfactuals].
Hay, J., C. Kennedy, and B. Levin (1999). Scale structure underlies telicity in ‘degree achievements’. In T. Matthews and D. Strolovitch (Eds.), Proceedings of SALT 9, Ithaca, NY, pp.
127–144. CLC Publications.
Igarashi, Y. and T. Gunji (1998). The temporal system in Japanese. In T. Gunji and K. Hasida
(Eds.), Topics in the Constraint-Based Grammar of Japanese, pp. 81–97. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Kaufmann, S. and M. Miyachi (2011). On the temporal interpretation of Japanese temporal
connectives. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 20, 33–76.
Kennedy, C. and B. Levin (2008). Measure of change: The adjectival core of degree achievements. In L. McNally and C. Kennedy (Eds.), Adjectives and Adverbs: Syntax, Semantics,
and Discourse, pp. 156–182. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Kindaichi, H. (1950). Kokugo dōshi no ichibunrui. Gengo Kenkyū 15. [A classification of
Japanese verbs].
Kindaichi, H. (Ed.) (1976). Nihongo Dōshi no Asupekuto. Mugi Shobō. [Japanese verb aspect].
Kratzer, A. (1981). The notional category of modality. In H.-J. Eikmeyer and H. Riesner (Eds.),
Words, Worlds, and Contexts, pp. 38–74. Walter de Gruyter.
Krifka, M. (1989). Nominal reference, temporal constitution and quantification in event semantics. In R. Bartsch, J. van Benthem, and E. Bos (Eds.), Semantics and Contextual Expression,
pp. 75–115. Foris Publication.
Krifka, M. (1992). Thematic relations as links between nominal reference and temporal constitution. In I. Sag and A. Szabolcsi (Eds.), Lexical Matters, pp. 29–53. Stanford, CA: CSLI
Publications.
Ogihara, T. (1998). The ambiguity of the -te iru form in Japanese. Journal of East Asian
Linguistics 7, 87–120.
Smith, C. S. (1991). The Parameter of Aspect, Volume 43 of Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy. Kluwer.
Tenny, C. L. (1994). Aspectual Roles and the Syntax-Semantics Interface. Dordrecht: Kluwer.